On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Ray Saintonge <[email protected]> wrote: > Sam Korn wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson <[email protected]> >>>> I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful >>>> model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically >>>> adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works. >>>> >>> NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit >>> the website. >>> >> I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work is >> with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't >> share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's* >> point of view. >> > > An enforced POV cannot really be neutral.
Exactly. My dilemma is between an enforced POV and no POV (i.e. NPOV). >> (Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to manage with a small >> base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is >> essential.) >> >> > Not really, in a paradoxical way. Many rarely visited articles on > non-controversial subjects already achieve that neutrality. An > unchallenged article written by a single person is neutral at the moment > it is written, and remains so until challenged. If the content is > outrageous that neutrality will seldom last more than a few minutes. But on other articles it would be plain impossible, the general point I was aiming at. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
